Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134358›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2019

Quality of life in patients after reconstruction with the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) versus the radial free forearm flap (RFFF).

Jennifer L Spiegel, Yiannis Pilavakis, Bernhard G Weiss, Martin Canis, Christian Welz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Supraclavicular artery fascial flap (SAFF): a valuable tool in salvage total laryngectomy and hemipharyngolaryngectomy.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer L SpiegelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Jennifer.Spiegel@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6187-0195
Yiannis PilavakisDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Bernhard G WeissDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Martin CanisDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8368-0149
Christian WelzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGold-standard for defect reconstruction in the head and neck region is the radial free forearm flap (RFFF). The supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) gained popularity due to its versatility. Our objective was to compare functional advantages between both modalities.

methodsA retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive cases with advanced-stage squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx after cancer defect reconstruction with two modalities (12 SCAIF; 12 RFFF) was conducted. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30-questions (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Head and Neck 35-questions (QLQ-H&N35).

resultsMean follow-up was 22.2 ± 9.5 months. Comparison of quality of life (QOL) showed significant differences only in speech and problems with the senses in favor of the SCAIF.

conclusionPatients report satisfactory QOL results after oncologic surgery and reconstruction with preliminary no significant differences in most aspects comparing the two modalities. Therefore, the SCAIF appears as a viable alternative to the gold standard, the RFFF.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleForearmHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresRetrospective StudiesSurgical FlapsSurveys and QuestionnairesHNSCCQuality of lifeRadial free forearm flapSCAIFSupraclavicular island flap

Identifiers

PMID31134358
OpenAlexW2946960402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.